Annabel Hernandez v. YP Advertising and Publishing LLC, 2:16-cv-09612

Plaintiff Annabel Hernandez sued "YP Advertising & Publishing, LLP" in Los Angeles Superior Court for wrongful termination (including an ADEA claim) and UCL violations; First Amended Complaint filed later contained the same claims.
Defendant is actually YP Advertising and Publishing LLC; plaintiff served a summons and the original complaint on defendant’s agent on November 4, 2016.
Defendant removed to federal court on December 29, 2016, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on the ADEA claim.
Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely because the 30-day removal period began on November 4, 2016.
Defendant argued the original complaint misnamed it (LLP vs. LLC) and therefore it was not a named party until the FAC (filed November 30), making removal timely.
The court found service was effective under California law despite the minor misnomer, the original complaint revealed federal jurisdiction, and removal was untimely; the case was remanded but attorney’s fees were denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal	Removal period began on service (Nov 4); removal by Dec 29 was late	Misnomer meant defendant was not the named party until FAC (Nov 30); 30-day clock started then	Removal was untimely; minor name error did not defeat service or delay the 30-day clock
Effect of misnomer on service/jurisdiction	Minor name error does not defeat service when defendant received actual notice	Misnomer excused timely removal because defendant wasn’t properly named	Misnomer treated as harmless; defendant conceded proper service and was the intended party
Duty to investigate removability	Defendant should have used reasonable intelligence to ascertain removability from original complaint	Defendant could wait until properly named in FAC	Defendant had obligation to determine removability from the face of the original complaint
Attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)	Fees warranted because removal was improper	Removal was objectively reasonable given the name discrepancy	Fees denied because removal had an objectively reasonable basis

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (burden on removing defendant; presumption against removal)
Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removal burden rests with defendant)
Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 526 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1999) (service triggers defendant’s time to remove)
Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006) (30-day removal clock runs when pleading affirmatively reveals federal jurisdiction)
Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendant must apply reasonable intelligence to ascertain removability)
Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendant may not ignore documents revealing removability)
Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2014) (30-day removal deadline is mandatory)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only when removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis)
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; remand required if lacking)